[Dataman]

You can document this, of course.

I have. See my previous post.

[atlaw]

As a reminder, I asked earlier how you would define a "kind", a term apparently critical to the Creation Science curriculum suggested by Remedy (as in plants and animals only reproduce after their own 'kind'). Any answer?

[Condorman]

I read the links. I found this interesting paragraph:

is not possible to develop a meaningful discussion when the fundamental assumptions of the arguments are so different: on the one hand, the concept of intelligent design beyond the laws of nature is based on intuitive, philosophical, or religious grounds, while on the other, the study and explanation of all levels of the living world, including the molecular level, is based on scientific fact and inference.

Behe's response was essentially, "I know you are, but what am I?"

ID is little more than a list of proposed problems for evolution. As jennyp pointed out, even William Dembski points out that ID is still not ready for inclusion in a grade-school curriculum, and has yet to develop a research program.

If a designer plopped down the first organism on Planet Earth, wished it well, and sent it on it's way, very few people would be able to refute you. If, however, you then claimed that the designer stuck around fiddling with the genome for the next billion years, you'd be hard-pressed to make a case. Are genetic changes induced by a designer fundamentally different than changes arising from natural causes? If so, how would we go about identifying some?